Greggl said:
I still think you're misreading the entire motiviation here.
The point isn't to get rid of rental operations.
Boycott SmartFlix!
- Thread starter bbalser
- Start date
I still think you're misreading the entire motiviation here.
The point isn't to get rid of rental operations.
In the end, it might not even matter whether or not they can win any infringment suits brought against them...because they can be driven into bankruptcy simply by having to pay the fees associated with defending themselves against the suits, win or lose.
And, yeah, 'ol Travis there looks like a real winner *snicker*.
I bet if I stepped on him, he wouldn't even crunch.
From now on, maybe everyone should just put a bug on their videos that fades in and out every few minutes, along the lines of if you are watching this in any form other than an original consumer copy purchased from the originating company, you have a pirated copy and are contributing to theft from the content's creators.
And, yeah, 'ol Travis there looks like a real winner *snicker*.
I bet if I stepped on him, he wouldn't even crunch.
From now on, maybe everyone should just put a bug on their videos that fades in and out every few minutes, along the lines of if you are watching this in any form other than an original consumer copy purchased from the originating company, you have a pirated copy and are contributing to theft from the content's creators.
Last edited:
Greggl said:
It isn't. But it's gonna toast SmartFlix, and if all goes well, put them into bankruptcy.
THAT'S the motivation. Not keeping up sales.
Greggl said:
Simple. This one will be priced less and will be marketed as a website which doesn't make it a source of pride to piss off the content providers. Lots of goodwill from providers actually voluntarily having their contents for rent, as opposed to some snake buying up retail copies with the expressed intent to undermine the sales of the content providers. A company built on honesty and creating a win-win-win for itself, the content providers, and most importantly, the customer.
Which one would you rent from, given the choice?
ChuckS
Veteran
No matter how unsavory you find smartflix, they have a huge competitive advantage when it comes to market share and are well positioned to fend off challenges from similar sites.
Sorry, I like what Ben is saying but this discussion has been very myopic. Sure you can probably get Barry and other film related companies to join with you. And as much as I'm sure Barry Schiff, John and Martha King and Jeppesen are as upset as you are, it is very unlikely that they will trust you any more in the future than they trust smartflix.
Not to say that you can't do it but its probably going to take much longer and cost you a lot more money than you think to compete with smartflix.
There's a much easier way to beat them. If you truly believe that there are far more people renting your videos versus purchasing them then sell your videos for $9.95. I'd much rather purchase for $9.95 than rent for $9.99. Or figure out where the consumers threshold for pain is, maybe they'll pay $12 to purchase rather than $10 to rent.
If you start a site to compete with smartflix I'll certainly rent from you. But honestly I think everyone in this conversation is caught up in the emotion and unless you have a lot of money to invest in this I think you'll go bankrupt before they do.
Also, consider that they have lots of titles they rent that are infringing on the copyright of some really big companies who produce training materials, smartflix has either worked out an agreement with them or they are going to be in some serious crap before too long. A different strategy might be make those companies aware of whats happening.
Just a though
Sorry, I like what Ben is saying but this discussion has been very myopic. Sure you can probably get Barry and other film related companies to join with you. And as much as I'm sure Barry Schiff, John and Martha King and Jeppesen are as upset as you are, it is very unlikely that they will trust you any more in the future than they trust smartflix.
Not to say that you can't do it but its probably going to take much longer and cost you a lot more money than you think to compete with smartflix.
There's a much easier way to beat them. If you truly believe that there are far more people renting your videos versus purchasing them then sell your videos for $9.95. I'd much rather purchase for $9.95 than rent for $9.99. Or figure out where the consumers threshold for pain is, maybe they'll pay $12 to purchase rather than $10 to rent.
If you start a site to compete with smartflix I'll certainly rent from you. But honestly I think everyone in this conversation is caught up in the emotion and unless you have a lot of money to invest in this I think you'll go bankrupt before they do.
Also, consider that they have lots of titles they rent that are infringing on the copyright of some really big companies who produce training materials, smartflix has either worked out an agreement with them or they are going to be in some serious crap before too long. A different strategy might be make those companies aware of whats happening.
Just a though
TwistedLincoln
Veteran
ChuckS said:
(Yes, I know I said I was out of this thread, but I think I can be of help here...)
I think this is a big part of the point here. If everyone really feels that rentals hurt their business, because some people will rent who would have otherwise bought, then providing the rentals yourself will cause the same problem:
Say you're selling a DVD for $75. SmartFlix rents it out for $9. You decide you want to crush them, so everyone bands together and starts their own rental service. Now your disc is being rented for $7, and you get $5 from each rental.
If you believe that some people that are renting your disc would have purchased it, than for every one of those lost sales, then your DVD will have to be rented out 15 times for each lost sale just to break even...
The same logic that everyone is using to suggest that SmartFlix is seriously hurting DVD sales can be used to suggest that your own Copyright-Holder-Friendly service will do the same...
Greggl
Well-known member
David Jimerson said:
Now I think you guys aren't quite getting what I'm saying.
Smartflix exists because most of the content creators who's titles they rent,
DONT want their materials on the rental market, regardless of the integrity
of the company or the share in rental revenue. They budget their production
investment and price their titles where they do for a sales specific model...
not a rental one. Smartflx has VERY few titles that are available from any
other rental source... albeit crookedly.
I bet it would be cathartic to beat them at their own game... It'd be
finacially wise to find a way to shut em down... but once again, its going to
be very interesting trying to make a living based off of specialty video in
an 'on demnd' world.
You guys are still missing the point. (Still.)
The lost sales are almost immaterial to the idea behind starting this new company.
It's the dishonesty.
By far the most offensive thing about SmartFlix is the dishonesty and the attitude.
If they had approached us honestly about what they were doing, we would have been willing to come to terms on the HVX DVD. (And I KNOW we can't be alone in this.)
But they didn't.
And they've pissed a LOT of people off with their bad faith. Enough so to motivate people to find a legal and ethical way to take them down.
So, it's not about the numbers.
The lost sales are almost immaterial to the idea behind starting this new company.
It's the dishonesty.
By far the most offensive thing about SmartFlix is the dishonesty and the attitude.
If they had approached us honestly about what they were doing, we would have been willing to come to terms on the HVX DVD. (And I KNOW we can't be alone in this.)
But they didn't.
And they've pissed a LOT of people off with their bad faith. Enough so to motivate people to find a legal and ethical way to take them down.
So, it's not about the numbers.
Well, the dishonesty and the attitude sound damned offensive, but at the end of the day legal actions are based upon stuff like lost sales, yes?
And (from a distance) I sure hope that these thieving bastards wind up on the receiving end of some vicious legal action.
Just on general principles.
And (from a distance) I sure hope that these thieving bastards wind up on the receiving end of some vicious legal action.
Just on general principles.
Sad Max said:
Well, sure, but this idea isn't a legal action. It's using market forces. Competition. With the intent to undercut their revenues considerably.
Like I said -- different motivation entirely.
TwistedLincoln
Veteran
David Jimerson said:
So you're saying you want to "take them down" and put them out of business not because they're costing you money, but because they didn't ask you nicely first? That's a bit extreme.
I get that everyone here is angry that SmartFlix is essentially giving them the finger. If you are losing out on sales because of it, then find a way to compete -- maybe by renting the titles yourself, maybe by lowering your prices, or whatever. There are plenty of ways to beat them out through competition, as you have suggested.
But if you launch an endeavor for the expressed purpose of making them suffer, then you are doing something far worse then they are -- at least they are just in in for the money -- you'd be in it for revenge...
TwistedLincoln said:
You make it SEEM that way with way you phrase it, but your phrasing is what's "extreme."
Not being up front with what they were doing was merely the beginning of it.
You need to go look at their website and the attitude on display there about all of this.
You need to surf about the 'net a bit and see what Travis Corcoran has to say himself. (Trust me, you'll come out of it with little but contempt for the man.)
Indeed there are, and this merely one.
No, not revenge -- as way to curtail a dishonest and parasitc practice. Beating them at their own game does sweeten it, of course, but it's far more like protesting a practice you find despicable and trying to find a way to end it -- on principle, not out of spite.
I mean, people who protest clear-cutting of forests aren't out for revenge, are they? Or those who are wise enough to put together the money to BUY the forests so they can't be clear-cut?
It's not revenge. It's true that being angered can be a motivator, but that doesn't mean the motivation itself is vengeance.
Rubix³
Well-known member
I just got done reading this thread. Interesting opinions. Most of what I was going to ask has been answered.
I ask the following because we're all adults and we need to be realistic. If you want to start another site to wipe them out out of anger, then you're doomed to fail. You HAVE to be in it for the cash.
Also, you'll need to take the time to contact the 1500+ people that they neglected to if you want to have the extensive collection they have (in addition to providing them the profits). This could take a very long time - probably 100x the amount of time and manpower it took sf to set up their business. Are you willing to do this?
I can step outside the box on this because I'm not in the how-to business. If I was, I'm sure I'd be just as angry.
I ask the following because we're all adults and we need to be realistic. If you want to start another site to wipe them out out of anger, then you're doomed to fail. You HAVE to be in it for the cash.
Also, you'll need to take the time to contact the 1500+ people that they neglected to if you want to have the extensive collection they have (in addition to providing them the profits). This could take a very long time - probably 100x the amount of time and manpower it took sf to set up their business. Are you willing to do this?
I can step outside the box on this because I'm not in the how-to business. If I was, I'm sure I'd be just as angry.
Sure. But if I see a dirty old pig, and what I want at the end of the day is a nice juicy ham, does it matter if I use a knife, or a sledgehammer?David Jimerson said:
Maybe it's just a side effect of the years spent in the environment in which I have spent them, but bad attitude and dishonesty and flip-you-off-for-the-fun-of-it are just par for the course, and hardly worth getting worked-up-over. Ripping you off for the fruits of your actual labor, now that's a lynching offense.
The principle applies outside the 'how-to' business. For example, the various IATSE deals with the producers and studios include contributions to health and retirement funds based in part upon box-office sales and video rentals (and soon, internet deliveries) of the products we create. So a pirated copy of whatever, represents money that I won't see, after I retire. So seeing someone ripped off for the independent how-to video they have created, pisses me off in pretty much the same way, as seeing a feature or tv content distributor ripped off for the money that is their due.Rubix said:
Last edited:
Rubix³ said:
Point taken, but not entirely accurate.
You HAVE to be dedicated to it, but plenty of enterprises exist which aren't motivated by cash, but by a "higher cause."
Think of it as a co-op, or a buyer's group, or something like that. Companies which exist to fulfill a mission more than to make a profit, though profits are also nice.
Anyway, don't get me wrong -- I went down a road in stark terms here (about the anger over the dishonesty) merely because some weren't quite following the subtler motivations behind this.
It's not, as I said above, about vengeance. It's inspired by being appalled by a practice, but a lot of good things come out of exactly that.